Mass, energy, gravity, space, time and math

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of perception concerning mass, energy, gravity, space, time, and mathematical concepts. Participants explore whether these entities can be perceived directly or only indirectly through sensory experiences and measurements.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that we cannot perceive mass, energy, gravity, space, or time directly, suggesting that our sensory apparatus limits our perception.
  • One participant questions the notion of direct perception by asking for examples, indicating a challenge to the idea that any perception can be considered direct.
  • Another participant points out that even color perception involves indirect detection through physical processes, questioning the validity of claiming direct perception of color over mass.
  • Some participants propose that it may be interesting to consider whether phenomena not appreciable by our senses can be measured reliably and why we lack sensory tools for measuring mass or local gravity differences.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the concept of direct perception, with no consensus reached on whether any of the discussed entities can be perceived directly or how to define direct perception itself.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding perception, measurement, and the capabilities of sensory apparatus, with unresolved questions regarding the reliability of measurements of phenomena beyond direct sensory experience.

Dremmer
Messages
92
Reaction score
0
Can we perceive these things directly? I'd say we can't. We can only perceive them indirectly. We have no senses to directly perceive these things.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Provide an example of something that you consider to be perceived "directly".

Zz.
 
Dremmer:
We have no senses that perceive anything "directly", so frankly, I don't see your point.
 
We do not even know in full detail what goes on when we "perceive".
 
ZapperZ said:
Provide an example of something that you consider to be perceived "directly".

Zz.

Color. We can directly perceive an object's color, but not its mass.
 
Dremmer said:
Color. We can directly perceive an object's color, but not its mass.

How is this "direct"?

"Color" is some frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum. So one actually detects the frequency via some means, either using a resonant circuit/system, or in the case of visible light, via your eyes, which convert it to electrical impulses in your optical system.

So why is this more direct than detecting mass of an object?

Zz.
 
dremmer:
Somewhat more interesting questions would have been, for example:
1. Have we reason to believe that phenomena not appreciable by our sensory apparatus can as reliably be measured as those phenomene we may also perveive with our sensory apparatus?

2. Why have we not developed a sensory apparatus that measures the mass of objects, or differences in the various local gravity fields?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K